Brutal arrest is raising eyebrows, department has dropped charges against the victim

Brandy Berning, 33, of Davie, Florida was pulled over last March after committing a careless, but common mistake. She had used the high-ocupancy vehicle (HOV) lane -- a lane reserved for carpoolers -- while traveling alone on Interstate 95, according to the on-duty copy -- Lt. William O’Brien, of the Broward Sheriff's Office (BSO). The incident occurred in Broward County, the southeast Floridean county which is home to Ft. Lauderdale and neighbors Miami-Dade.

The incident began with that simple traffic stop. The single mom was eager to get home to take care of her child, but she also was worried that the law enforcement officer might misrepresent her actions in court. So when the officer walked over to discuss the situation with her, she press the record button on her smartphone app. That's where things took a dramatic term.

Here's an account of the events as told by the single mom who spoke with ABC Local 10 news.

The frustrated cop surely was not about to let the suspect have a proveable record of the account that she could use in court. But after two minutes arguing, he has had enough. He tells her she is under arrest for committing a felony.

Ms. Berning told the cop that he had no reason to arrest her and refused to exit her vehicle. That would be the final refusal. The police officer decided to take aggressive action, climbing into Ms. Berning's car.

"Get off of me! You are breaking the law! I am not getting out of my car. Get off of me!" she cried.

But the cop was ready to exact his vision of justice. He allegedly grabbed her keys and dragged her from the car, slamming her down to the streettop.

II. Violent Arrest Leaves Female Victim With Scars and Bruises

The violent arrest left her injured, but the cop had little sympathy for her. He transported her to the local jail where she was left overnight, unable to see her child.

She catalogs the injuries from the incident, stating:

I had a bruise on my cheek. And my leg got cut, I had a scar on my leg -- three large wounds, scrapes down my leg. And there was a rock lodged in my leg. Also he had sprained my wrist. Touching me, trying to take my personal belongings from me, trying to put me in jail for something so small.

The next day she was released. She was charged with traffic violations and for "resisting" the officer's order issued after she refused to allow him to seize her property.

[Image Source: Tom Lacey/Photobucket]

The brutal arrest of the woman shocked at least one member of Lt. O'Brien's own department. She told local news reporters that she only decided to sue Lt. O'Brien after another cop, whose identity she chose to protect, spoke with her about the arrest and expressed outrage at his fellow officer's actions, suggesting she sue.

She took the second officer's advice. She's hired two top local attorney's and this week filed a lawsuit over the violent, and potentially illegal arrest. She is being represented by Mike Glasser and Eric Rudenberg.

III. You Have the Right to Record.

Mr. Rudenberg tells the local Sun Sentinel: that the suit is necessary to force cops to remember that they're employed by taxpayers, not rogue vigilantes. He explains:

Finding they're liable for what they did, using what we think was excessive force just because she was recording him on her phone, that would drive home the point that police officers can't do this.

In Florida, both parties need to be informed if a conversation is being recorded. But federal court rulings have thus far unanimously defended the principle that regardless of such laws, citizens have the right to record officers so long as they are not obstructing an investigation.

The U.S. Supreme Court has thus far not had to comment on the issue. The highest court that has thus far decided on the legality of the issue is the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit which sets precedent for the Districts of Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico and Rhode Island.

It ruled in 2011 that third parties and suspects have the right to record officers as long as they aren't obstructing an investigation (e.g. blocking an officer from examining evidence or arresting someone). Recording an officer is not inherently obstruction or grounds for arrest the court ruled. It says that recording an on-duty officer is protected under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Some other lower courts have ruled that given that this was a new civil rights issue, they lacked the information or jurisidiction to override a police officer's qualified immunity. Qualified Immunity 42 U.S. Code § 1983 states that an officer may not be charged for actions which did not violate "clearly established law". These courts ruled that the arrested person(s) should not be charged for the recording, but that the officer could not be charged either as the legality of the recordings had not been "clearly established".

Ms. Berning's attorney, Mr. Glasser suggests that law enforcement officers have "[no] reasonable expectation of privacy" while performing the duties that they are paid by taxpayers like Ms. Berning to do. He and his fellow attorney after much preparation filled a lawsuit in Floridian court this week. The lawsuit targets both Lt. O'Brien and the Brownard Sherriff's Office this. In the filing Lt. O'Brien is accused of battery, false arrest and false imprisonment.

Despite the Florida law about recording Barry Butin, co-legal panel chairman of the Broward County American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), says that the law is probably on Ms. Berning's side, particularly given the excessive use of force and that she did almost immediately comply with the law and tell the officer she was recording him.

Mr. Butin comments:

[Berning] has a good chance of the law being on her side. Clearly, it was an overreaction … And look at the totality of the circumstances. She shouldn't have had to spend the night in jail, that's for sure.

Ironically, this is not the first incident for the BSO relating to a cell phone recording. A separate BSO deputy -- Officer Paul Fletcher -- engaged in a similar incident back in 2011. The citizen's case again Mr. Fletcher accuses him of burglary, battery, criminal mischief and petty theft.

This is the second brutality incident with a Broward cop. [Image Source: Christopher Ziemnowicz]

Coincidentally, the fresh incident comes just as Lt. O'Brien's fellow officer is about to face the justice system. A hearing is scheduled in the Fletcher case for tonight. Officer Fletcher also reportedly targeted a female during a traffic stop. He allegedly smashed her phone in an attept to destroy her evidence of the event.

In response to the second-straight incident, in July 2013 the BSO begrudgingly changed its policies. In a move potentially designed to reduce the department's legal accountability, the BSO sent out a memo "clarifying" to officers that citizens were legally allowed to record them.

Prior to the brutal arrest, the BSO announced a policy change in an internal memo, allowing citizen recording. Apparently Lt. O'Brien didn't get the memo.
[Image Source: Ask Audio Mag]

Assuming he's still on the job one must wonder whether the self-proclaimed legal expert, Lt. O'Brien got the memo.

Given the new policy, it didn't take long for the department to last year also announce its decision to drop all charges against Ms. Berning, including the charge of resisting arrest. Reviewing the video evidence of how its officer conducted himself, it found no evidence that the young mother other than the traffic violation, which in light of the imprisonment, it decided not to pursue.

It is unclear whether Lt. O'Brien has been placed on leave or if he is still with the department.

All charges against Brandy Berning [pictured] have been dropped. [Image Source: WND]

What is clear is that the department's actions in the aftermath of the messy arrest suggest its employee didn't know as much about the law as he thought he did. Had he, perhaps he would rethink his decision to appoint himself judge and jury on that cool spring evening almost a year ago, an evening that will surely remain painfully etched into Ms. Berning's thoughts for years to come.

Police departments are also militarizing. My university's force used to just have the power to write tickets and traveled around on bicycles.

Since that time, they have given themselves SUVs with shot guns, assault gear, listening devices (that they used to listen to the student group siding with the striking employees during a failed attempt to unionize), a large new building, and on and on -- despite there already being a local city police force.

And, this department is nothing when compared with the militarization of other forces. Just Google police militarization America and you'll find more than you want to know.

We living in a creeping police state. Just as the LRAD about your freedom sometime.

quote: [Berning] has a good chance of the law being on her side. Clearly, it was an overreaction … And look at the totality of the circumstances. She shouldn't have had to spend the night in jail, that's for sure.

As for the beating, though, sure... why not?

(my emphasis added)

I really hope there is more to his statement than such a glib appraisal of what happened.

All charges were dropped. The PD should settle out of court and the Officer should be terminated with a permanent annotation on his record.

If they decide to take it to court... the Officer should serve time in jail.

I wonder... I know with Stand your Ground law, if an Officer invades your home without a warrant you can shoot them dead... but your car? That's a little more tricky. I know cars have been ruled as part of your "castle," but probable cause has been used for grounds to search a vehicle in the past, not a warrant. Those searches though still required consent.

This wasn't a search. It was an assault and abduction. You also have the lower hand against a cop at your door. The could would probably shoot you dead before you could react.

All of this is pretty scary. The cop sounded like a thug with a "I'm better than you," attitude.

He might actually be terminated over this since I don't think Florida has police unions, in CA not a chance. It is pretty scary that cops feel so comfortable doing this type of thing when they know they are being recorded.

quote: I wonder... I know with Stand your Ground law, if an Officer invades your home without a warrant you can shoot them dead... but your car? That's a little more tricky. I know cars have been ruled as part of your "castle," but probable cause has been used for grounds to search a vehicle in the past, not a warrant. Those searches though still required consent.

In my State, if she had a reasonable fear of her own person being assaulted and possibly killed, then yes the officer could have been shot justly and legally.

The officer clearly used excessive force without cause. Frankly I wish he HAD been killed.

I think if every "police officer" that abused his power was taken out, there would be a better understanding of where the line between authority and abuse stands.

In older, more civilized times, people wouldn't stand for this nonsense.

I didnt read the whole thing so I wont comment about what force was used but she did not have the right to fight back. When a police officer tells you that you are under arrest you do not say fuck you no im not and expect everything to turn out peachy. She should have gotten out of the car and complied and everything would have been taken care of through the legal system. She was definately in the wrong for resisting arrest whether she agreed with it or not.

Bullshit. He entered her car, went for the keys and her phone and began to assault her before he announced she was, "under arrest". Had he followed arrest procedures instead of going 'billy-badass' on her things may not have turned out this way.

The cop was a dumbass. He and the department he represent(s,ed) deserve all they have coming.

Ms. Berning told the cop that he had no reason to arrest her and refused to exit her vehicle. That would be the final refusal. The police officer decided to take aggressive action, climbing into Ms. Berning's car.

Sure looks loke he told her she was under arrest and she did not cooperate, aka she resisted arrest. He them took physical action.

Agreed. Granted the cop was being over-zealous and it escalated too quickly but, by refusing, she brought part of it on herself. Yes, she should have been allowed to record. The cop clearly got pissed at the point she says she is recording. They both let their emotions take over.

There is an old saying, you can beat the rap but you can't beat the ride. For the more obtuse among us it simply means that you can beat the charges in court but if the cop(s) say you are under arrest you are going to jail - regardless if it is right or wrong. The more friction you give them the worse it is going to be for you. You don't tell a cop no. Just do what they say and then tell the judge and jury. Which, at the end of the day, is exactly what is happening here. But, she still went to jail and she will think twice before saying no to a cops demands.

Lets twist this a little. What if she were a 6'4" black male? Does that change your perception any? Just a thought...

quote: You don't tell a cop no. Just do what they say and then tell the judge and jury. Which, at the end of the day, is exactly what is happening here. But, she still went to jail and she will think twice before saying no to a cops demands.

I'm all for cooperation, but it is NOT good advice to never say "No." to an officer's request. Doing so immediately forfeits several rights such as unlawful search. If exercising one of your rights as a citizen bothers officers, then I believe the problem is with officer attitudes rather than the citizen's.

What are you talking about? She most certainly should have refused to comply with an unlawful arrest. She did good by my book in this regard (if only everyone had the balls to resist illegal police actions, we wouldn't have to put up with this BS). The only thing she could have done better during the stop was to inform the cop immediately that he was being recorded.

Secondly, what do race, tallness, and gender have anything to do with this story? What are you implying? Are you saying it would have been OK if the victim was a tall black man? I sure hope not... I don't get it.

My apologies for using some knowledge and a little bit of common sense.

Can you find a state law in any of the 50 states that says that when an officer places you under arrest you only need to comply if you feel like it?

Go ahead.. Ill wait.

No luck? The fact is that she chose to violate the law when she resisted arrest. She should have cooperated and when she was released she would have every legal right to file a lawsuit, make a complaint, contact the media, etc. She choose to break the law and faced the consequences of her actions. If she cooperated which she was legally obligated to do she would not have gotten hurt, would have been conpensated for the officers vilation of her actual rights and the officer would have been penalized if his actions were wrong.

quote: “Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”

If you would have done more than just a "cursory web search" you would have a better argument. If you actually look at that case then you would know that is has nothing to do with this one.

In Plummer's case, the officer was attempting to arrest him for a misdemeanor offense that was not committed in the officer's presence, which is not allowed. The officer also started using excessive force BEFORE telling Plummer that he was under arrest.

In this case, the offense that she was being arrested for was committed in the officer's presence and he placed her under arrest before using any force.

Also, supreme court cases are not laws. They may help to put laws in place but they are not law. The Justices give a ruling of a case and that ruling only applies to those specific circumstance. You can have an almost identical case and use a supreme court ruling as your defense and you may not be successful because the circumstances are slightly different.

quote: Can you find a state law in any of the 50 states that says that when an officer places you under arrest you only need to comply if you feel like it?

And you answered with that Supreme Court case I assumed you were responding to my challenge. Then you call me an idiot when I show that your answer was completely irrelevant to anything I said or to this case in question.

Also, I may have missed it, but I saw nothing in the constitution about your right to fight against what you perceive to be unlawful arrest. Last I checked, the Supre Court Justices are the ones to decide what rights you currently have, not just what you wish.

Perhaps you are thinking about the 4th Amendment in the Bill of Rights. While this gives us protection against unlawful seizures, it also says nothing about your "right" to fight against what you perceive as an unlawful arrest.

The woman in this case, had she followed the officer's instructions, would had been able to execute her 6th Amendment rights had she felt that she had been unreasonably seized. The officer would then have been punished had the courts deemed his actions unreasonable.

quote: Last I checked, the Supre Court Justices are the ones to decide what rights you currently have, not just what you wish.

What part of:

“Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”

Did you not understand? Because Supreme Court justices wrote that, when they decided you were WRONG!

1. You can resist an unlawful arrest2. You can physically prevent said unlawful arrest3. You can use as much force as necessary to defend your person from said arrest, up to and including killing said officer if your life is put in danger

Now I'm really sorry you had a problem with her defending her rights as a citizen. I'm also very sorry you have NO clue how the Constitution works.

If the Constitution worked as you seem to think it does, we would all be dead. Because it doesn't specifically mention us having the "right" to breath either.

The quote is a fabrication. There are no known examples of the above quotation being accompanied by a reference giving the year, the court, the state, or a link to the exact wording. The quoted text is not found in the text of Plummer or in any other known ruling by any court. In fact, the opposite is true—all of the cases that cite Plummer discuss the issue as defense against unlawful force, and most also note that a person may not use force to resist an unlawful arrest.( Higgins, 73 F.3d 364 at *4; Wilson, 842 N.E.2d at 447; Andrew P. Wright, Resisting Unlawful Arrests: Inviting Anarchy or Protecting Individual Freedom? 46 Drake L. Rev. 383 (1997) (noting that as of publication, 36 of the 50 states prohibited resisting unlawful arrests).

In the 1900 Supreme Court Case Bad Elk v. United States they also talk about the issue of resisting unlawful arrest. This case has been widely cited on the internet, but is no longer considered good law. Most states have, either by statute or case law, removed the unlawful arrest defense for resisting arrest.

This is just another case of someone shouting "I know my rights" when they really have no clue.

Also, since you are fond of Supreme Court cases, check out Pennsylvania v. Mimms. The Justices decided that Police Officers are allowed to make drivers step out of the vehicles even for a routine traffic violation.

She ignored that command. FL statute 316.072s3 states that:

quote: It is unlawful and a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083, for any person willfully to fail or refuse to comply with any lawful order or direction of any law enforcement officer ...

She now has committed a misdemeanor in his presence and he does have the authority to arrest her for it.

Was he wrong about the whole recording thing, he may be; some of that is still up in the air. Was she wrong for not following his lawful orders? Very much so.

How do you figure. Officers have the legal authority to make people get out of their vehicles for any reason. She refused, thats grounds for arrest. Will officers generally arrest for that, no, but they can.

I have said multiple times that she has every right to file a lawsuit/complaint. If you listen to the actual audio which they failed to add in this article, she would likely win any lawsuit. My whole argument has been against the notion that people have that you can resist an arrest that you feel is unlawful, which is not the case.

It is true that there has been a centuries old common law allowing you to resist, but that has changed in the past few decades. There have been multiple Supreme Court cases about the issue. One recent one is Tillman v Florida.

It's a FL Supreme Court case from 2006 that states that deviating from common law too much is not acceptable, but they uphold the FL law that you do not have the right to resist arrest whether it is lawful or not.

Laws like Florida's are getting struck down State after State, because at their very essence, they're unconstitutional. It's only a matter of time before Florida's are officially rescinded as well.

You have to understand that the State's pass so many laws, and the Federal Courts so limited in how many cases they can review, things like this happen all the time. State's get away with breaking the law, the Constitution, until these laws are challenged and ruled on.

That doesn't make them legal, or morally right, however.

This isn't so clear cut as you're making it seem, but you even admitted to NOT reading the article or watching the video. Even if she didn't have the right to resist arrest, his behavior was clearly illegal and NOT in keeping with standard procedures. Dude, he sat in her passenger seat, without permission, and started wrestling her for her phone!! I mean come on, how can you defend this crap?

I just don't understand where you're coming from. How could you so blindly take the side of the officer and paint this woman as a criminal?

Ok to start with you obviously have not listened to the recordinig. He told her to hand over her phone claiming she had committed a felony. (wrong, lie)He then went to the passenger side and GOT IN HER CAR.He took her keys, he tried to take her phone. When she said "get out" and "no", to his unlawful demand, is when he started arresting her.

You make it sound like he just when up to her and told her to get out and that she was under arrest but you completely ignore the officers illegal activity.

You're a good sheep.Geezz if you're going to argue a point at least know that you're arguing about it!

Actually you said "I didnt read the whole thing" So I don't know how you can use any common sense when you didn't even bother to read or listen to the evidence. It seems to me the first common sense thing for you to have done was actually read the story and watch the News Clip with her recording.

If I were her, I would not settle out of court. I would take this to trial and I damn sure would sue the officer personally not just the department. I would own his house by the time I was done.

If people start making the few cops who are nothing more than thugs personally responsible for their actions maybe they will think twice before risking everything they own.

I've always been a pro-police kind of person (i've been an EMT for 30 years) but I've seen enough of these stories in the last several years to see that there is a very serious problem going on. Just tonight on the NY news was a story about a cop driving the wrong way down the street and hitting a parked SUV. When the owner of the parked SUV got out to talk to the cop the cop said the owner was driving recklessly and hit the cop car and arrested him. Luckily a nearby video camera caught the whole thing. the end result is another lawsuit for the taxpayers to pay.

Well, you can't sue people into prison, you can only make them pay money. And I'm not sure whether she could easily sue the cop personally, since he was acting in his official capacity when he abused her.

She can certainly sue the local PD and possibly get a big settlement. And, she should make sure that she doesn't sign a gag order with the settlement. She should make sure that everybody knows this cop's name and how much he cost the county. That will lower the chances that another department will want to hire him.

I agree that she should not settle, but even going further than that, I believe there is an important charge missing from the suit they plan to file against this criminal policeman. I heard/read charges about battery, false arrest, and false inprisonment (all true and proper IMO) but these are probably local or at the most state level charges. What about federal charges for violating her civil rights? If the victim was from a minority demographic, the press would probably already be beating the drums for a civil rights lawsuit. Why not in this case?

I'm pretty sure if he gets fired there will be a "permanent annotation" in his file. But that won't stop him from getting hired by one of the many near by counties. It happens all the time. Get fired from one get hired by the next.

Cops have ego trips, "you will respect my authority" you piss them off they will figure out a way to assault you. I'm thinking everybody needs to install cameras in their cars much like cops have in their patrol car, only facing the drivers side window.

Well when the common criminals have big guns, shouldn't enforcement department need to upgrade as well? Militarization of police has its relevant causes. It is just that the police still has to remember that excessive force is uncalled for when the situation does not warrant it. The police department needs to have better procedures to deal with situations such as this.

quote: Well when the common criminals have big guns, shouldn't enforcement department need to upgrade as well? Militarization of police has its relevant causes. It is just that the police still has to remember that excessive force is uncalled for when the situation does not warrant it. The police department needs to have better procedures to deal with situations such as this.

No they don't and no they shouldn't.

Criminals rarely use anything other than handguns. They want weapons they can conceal, because they are criminals and it's illegal for them to own weapons in the first place.

Police are not there to engage in armed combat with civilians. They are there to enforce the law. The extent to which they should be using deadly force is to PROTECT THEMSELVES OR OTHER OFFICERS from a threat. If they were engaging in movie-style shootouts they'd be causing more harm than good by endangering the surrounding public.

quote: Police are not there to engage in armed combat with civilians. They are there to enforce the law. The extent to which they should be using deadly force is to PROTECT THEMSELVES OR OTHER OFFICERS from a threat. If they were engaging in movie-style shootouts they'd be causing more harm than good by endangering the surrounding public.

Yup, some day we might give up the idea that everybody running around with their own personal military arsenals is a great idea.

Creeping? The USA is a global police state that attacks other countries without cause, employs unwarranted drone strikes to kill enemies of the state and anyone else nearby, dresses policeman in combat gear, interferes in drug farming operations around the world (except in Afghanistan), kills unarmed women driving around the nation's capital, virtually strip searches citizens at airports, spies on private communications without warrants, tortures "enemies" for information, holds "enemies" without due process, etc. Then video games and Hollywood movies are blamed for inspiring nut jobs to shoot up schools.

Wow, just wow. Glad my experience have been different. I live in Denver and the last 2 times I have been pulled over, I recorded the conversations (About 2 years between stops). Each time I told the officer I was recording and each time, they replied with more-less...."Ok" and that was it, no issues no nothing.

You are funny. You act like this was a big deal or something. This selfish asshole skipped everyone in line and used the HOV lane, she got what she deserved. The officer did overreact on the recording thing, but she's still a horrible person. Anyone that would lie to skip ahead of others deserves to go straight to jail in my opinion. We live in a nasty world, full of people who think they are something special.

I hope a cop pulls you over, and beats the shit out of you for doing something that, quite frankly, is nothing, and then, we call all you call you a selfish asshole for doing what you did and that you deserved it.

What a fucking piece of work you are. She deserved it? Are you fucking kidding me?

I personally hate people that skip lines and use the HOV lane when they are alone. It's not a stupid law and skipping in line is just selfishness at its best. I'm glad this stuck up chick got taken down. Unfortunately the officer is in the wrong on the recording matter and they will get sued, but the girl deserved this for using the HOV lane. She's a CHEATER..... man I hate people like that.

How mentally disturbed are you to have gotten this out of the article? Can you comprehend that the brutality she was subjected to had nothing to with the original traffic violation?

Riding in an HOV lane when one is not supposed to = bad. We got it. She should have been given a ticket.

However, all of that is entirely and completely eclipsed by the thug policeman unlawfully violating her civil rights, her person, and her possessions. These two issues are not even in the same ZIP code let alone ballpark. Surely you can muster the brainpower to appreciate that, right?

I'm all about sticking it to the man, but here in SoFl it's a "police state" because it needs to be.

Sorry, but I had to move back to Davie, Fl recently from cushy SoCal in order to move my parents and sister out of here.There have been 4 armed break-ins on their block in the past two weeks alone, while people were sleeping with children in the house.We have to shut down the business they just started because of brazen daytime robberies there as well.The number one requested gift amongst friends is a concealed weapons permit..not kidding.

If things seem strange in SoFl and the police seem especially brutal it's because they are and they need to be. If they weren't forceful and aggressive the thugs would wipe the floor with them.

The roads are extremely congested and this woman should not have been driving in the leftmost lane. Contrary to what the article states, it's in fact not easy to make that mistake here.She, like too many others in the area are inconsiderate and guilty of an entitled me-first mentality, which causes the vast majority of problems in Broward-Dade county.Don't you think everybody has somewhere they need to be and we'd all like to use the HOV lane if we could?

I'm not trying to excuse what the officer did, but keep in mind that people here who have the balls to do any sort of policing are literally taking their lives into their hands every time they pull someone over..a moments hesitation or non-compliance and he could wind up dead. If you think the're in it for the money-yeah, there are easier ways to make a buck.

Meth-heads and Oxy-freaks everywhere!

From my experiences here.. if you are respectful, polite and honest with the officers they seem almost relieved and are much more likely to be lenient.

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

Sorry, but the police can deal with crime without becoming a police state. This officer lied about what constituted a felony (do you really think he honestly believed her recording him was a felony offense? And if he did, then he's incompetent at his job) and then went on to attempt to illegal seize her possessions. He then arrested her for a felony that doesn't exist, using excessive force for the "crime" in question.

Its not like he tried to seize a bag of heroin off her and she pulled a knife on him.

I'm all for her getting punished for committing a minor road offense, but not for the police lying about laws and using their authority to bully civilians. I'm certainly not in favour of people screaming "its a WAAAARRRR out here!!" as an excuse to abuse civilians.

She committed a minor offense and can be considered selfish at best. There's a reason there isn't a mandatory death sentence for every crime on the books. not all crime is equal. She wasn't a hardened criminal. She was someone who drove her car in a car pool lane whilst only having one person in the car. Not exactly a dangerous crime.

First paragraph it says Miami is in Broward county. I don't even live in FL, but I know that Miami is in Dade county. C'mon DT, get your facts straight before posting articles, makes the rest of the article very objectionable.

It's likely that the police officer was not in the right, but stressing that the woman is a single mother, posting glamour shorts of her (she's pretty cute), and tragic phrases like "...unable to see her child" do not exactly help to lead readers to an objective opinion of the truth.

Of course it's a slanted article. The "victim" was being belligerent and uncooperative. However, going so far as to climb into the car window is where the cop overstepped. He should have had her step out of the vehicle and called for backup if she continued to be uncooperative.

There's nothing wrong with being uncooperative with criminals. There's one simple way to tell the bad cops from the good cops and that's what she did. When you say "I'm recording this" a good cop will respond "Ok" or at the very most "Ok, but I don't consent to have my image published". Bad cops INSTANTLY try to get you to stop because they are CRIMINALS and don't want to get caught being criminals.

Although I deplore the officers brutal actions against this woman, I am tired of citizens lack of respect for the law. The officer should have issued two tickets. One for the lane usage and one for the recording if it was in violation of state law. She could have challenged both, but it would have been on her dime and her time. People these days seem emboldened to defy the law and feel as though they have no accountability.

Now she will get paid for it because the officer did himself, the department and the state of Florida a huge injustice for doing what he did. Cops have to learn to cool it and leave their egos at home.

What law did she break again? Oh yeah driving in the wrong lane. That is the only ticket she should have gotten. I believe she would have happily accepted that ticket. Cops that break and make up their own laws get no respect nor do they deserve any.

I just watched the video again, and it wasn't until the very end they brought this up, I guess I missed it the first time:

He never charged her with making an unlawful recording, the supposed reason the altercation began in the first place. What the hell is up with that?

I suspect that's the reason we never get to hear what took place before she told him she was recording. That's being held from the public for the trial. But it's pretty obvious he damn sure didn't want whatever he said to come out, and abused his authority to prevent it.

With the informed consent law indicated in the article, the portion before the cop was informed she was recording would be withheld by Florida State law. The portion after he was informed is the the cop acting with full awareness of the recording, so the Florida law permits it.

The judge hearing the case will make a decision as to whether the *illegal* leader will be admitted in evidence after the lawyers put forward their reasons as to why it should/should not be admitted in evidence.

If it is damning to the officer, then his lawyer will try to suppress it and her lawyer will try to get it admitted.

If it just reveals the ordinary instructions everyone hears when the officer asks if the driver is aware of why they were stopped, and about license and registration, there will be little fuss by either lawyer.

Given the <erhm> physical attributes of the victim, it is entirely plausable that he might have made some inappropriate remarks, or maybe he was hitting on her, or trying to molest her. It's clear he desperately wanted to destroy whatever was recorded prior to him being informed. I guess we'll never know for sure...

Yes, she shouldn't have been arrested for recording but she totally knew she was breaking the law by driving in that lane. Come on. Really? She was just hoping she could play all innocent and use her looks to get out of a ticket. She was just disappointed she actually got caught.

Yes, she got caught for driving in an HOV lane, which is a traffic offense and is usually given a ticket. Anything else besides that could be grounds of misconduct by the cop.

I'm interested in what she recorded that the cop was so worried about, from my own experiences and from what I've seen, most traffic stops are very by the book, cop explains, person gives excuses, then cop says sign this and gives you your ticket, really nothing to worry about if you're being recorded. There may have been something on the recording that could be problematic for the cop, maybe he propositioned her or something lewd he may have said, otherwise why go all Nazi on her.

I'm all in favor of citizens recording cops as it is one of the only things left to the public to keep cops from overstepping their authority. When cops behave like criminals, they should be treated like criminals.

Yeah thank god we have cops to enforce something as fucking stupid as "HOV" lanes while there are people being raped, murdered, and assaulted somewhere. But then again, stopping actual crime doesn't result in a nice fine does it? Gotta make those quotas!

quote: She was just hoping she could play all innocent and use her looks to get out of a ticket.

Yeah you're right, that totally deserved her a beat down by 'the man'.

You're right, idiot. She was driving in the lane so why not just shoot her right? You're just exaggerating my statement in your demented mind to suit what you want to think.

EVERY DAY there are people that do whatever the hell they want because they think they can get away with it. I DID NOT say she needed to get beat down. I said that she deserved to get pulled over and this "I didn't know" is no excuse.

If it's OK for anyone to abuse the HOV lane why not just get rid of it altogether?

While we don't have HOV lanes here in the middle of nowhere, there is actually a purpose to them, and that is to try and get some of the cars off the road so traffic flows better for everybody else. Every person that carpools is one less car on the road during rush hour.

There are limits to how many cars can fit on a road during rush hour, and there is a limit to how many lanes can be added in many places. If buses are a big part of mass transit (most places they are), then they need to have the buses moving a decent rate of speed. HOV lanes are cheaper to make/maintain than rail, and can be used by regular cars in addition to the buses.

Well, if there were dedicated rape and murder lanes, the cops would be all over them. Hell, they could catch people speeding in those lanes and ticket them for not murdering or raping. I'm sure that would piss you off too, huh, Reclaimer?

quote: while there are people being raped, murdered, and assaulted somewhere

If you feel that way you're also saying they should never enforce stop lights, stop signs, speeding, muggings, vandalism, littering, arson, DUI, anything really.If a law exists it is a police officer's duty to uphold the law. If you feel they shouldn't laws need to be changed. Do you not know how things work? Oh yeah, you just know how to click the "Post Comment" button on DT.

Whether she accidentally or deliberately used this HOV lane is immaterial, what is a fact is she did, and sure, maybe she did hope she was going to be let off with a verbal warning, wouldn't you in her situation? What is wrong with hoping to avoid getting a traffic violation fine? Is that a crime in America?By her wanting to record the conversation just means the officer has to be sure of his facts. If he has a "cast iron" case against her, why would recording the conversation make any difference to her guilt? It wouldn't!If he saw her travelling several times the maximum allowed non-HOV vehicle distance in the HOV lane, then that is a completely different situation from if she had entered the HOV lane so as to safely make a turn onto another road. I don't know what the laws in America are like, but to me the latter situation is one where the lady shouldn't be fined, because she is driving in the HOV lane for reasons of safety, not for expedience of time, but in the former case she should.If this case had gone to court, then both parties would have to swear under oath that their evidence is correct anyway, so by her recording the conversation just reinforces the importance to both parties that what they would say in court has to be consistent with the truth. The fact this officer "leapt out of his tree" suggests that not only was the officer unsure of his facts, but that he was prepared to lie under oath as well.The plain simple fact is this officer was acting outside of the limits of authority invested in him by the US Government, and it is now he, and not her, who is the villain.

"Just so there is no trying to read other meaning into my earlier response: BSO feels very comfortable that we will prevail in court under the current state of the law when/if this potential litigant sues."

Do understand that even if she prevails and wins millions, it will NOT be piggy paying the bill, but instead will come from the pockets of the Broward County taxpayers. And don't start that "vote out the Sheriff and replace him with a "good" politician, because none of those are on offer. The Blue Wall knows very well how to deal with ANY "leadership" that dares stand against their Brothers in Blue. Just as they deal with any prosecutor who dares bring charges against them.

You assume "the full scope of the officers deeds are put out there" during a civil trial. It is indeed possible that she may get a judge which will let her do that, and an attorney brave enough to face the wrath of the Blue Wall if he attempts to do so, but that is not the way the smart money bets. This country's "Legal" system is every bit as corrupt as its "Law Enforcement". The Manny Ramos verdict is just one more proof of that.

quote: What everyone should take away from this is if you break the law ...

You completely misunderstand the situation, this isn't about people who obviously are breaking the law, it is about people doing something completely legal being taken to court. The way the officer acted was as though the lady was completely innocent and that he had just made up his allegations. Why else would he get so angry and throw her in jail for wanting to record the conversation? If he had a cast iron case then recording the conversation will only "dig the hole deeper" for the lady, so why get in a grump?Say, for example, have just got out of your parked car in a time restricted parking zone and this officer wants to issue you a ticket for parking too long. Are you breaking the law? Nope!When this sort of thing happens everyone looses: the police loose their credibility, the community looses because obeying the law doesn't stop you being arrested, the leaders loose because the laws they pass are irrelevant, and the criminals win because the police are busy taking innocent people to court.

Everybody who has ever driven a car has violated some law sometime. These are small misdemeanors and don't give a cop a license to abuse his authority. And this particular law doesn't even rise to the level of something that creates a public risk. It's basically a victimless crime.

It's pretty obvious why someone would want to record the situation, when dealing with a jerk like this guy.